Add some track_caller info to precondition panics

[saethlin]

Currently, when you encounter a precondition check, you'll always get the caller location of the implementation of the precondition checks. But with this PR, you'll be told the location of the invalid call. Which is useful.

I thought of this while looking at #129642 (comment).

The changes to tests/ui/const* happen because the const-eval interpreter skips #[track_caller] frames in its backtraces.

The perf implications of this are:

• Increased debug binary sizes. The caller_location implementation requires that the additional data we want to display here be stored in const allocations, which are deduplicated but not across crates. There is no impact on optimized build sizes. The panic path and the caller location data get optimized out.
• The compile time hit to opt-incr-patched bitmaps happens because the patch changes the line number of some function calls with precondition checks, causing us to go from 0 dirty CGUs to 1 dirty CGU.
• The other compile time hits are marginal but real, and due to doing a handful of new queries. Adding more useful data isn't completely free.

[saethlin]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 18e2a95 with merge 7798f9b...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 7798f9b (7798f9b35d0cd727f26631c015620e3dfe62e1f6)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (7798f9b): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (secondary -2.7%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-2.7%	[-3.1%, -2.3%]	2
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (primary 0.1%, secondary 0.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	47
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.4%]	35
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.6%]	47

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 752.783s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.79 MiB (0.02%)

[saethlin]

That looks possibly acceptable. Let's just see how bad this becomes?

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 197c7b3 with merge 0e77a71...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 0e77a71 (0e77a71199b6b2f7fac064cdf0b55e84d7ccca61)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0e77a71): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.2%	[0.2%, 0.2%]	1

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

Results (primary 0.3%, secondary 0.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	65
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	0.1%	[0.0%, 0.5%]	35
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.3%	[0.0%, 1.4%]	65

Bootstrap: 749.925s -> 751.312s (0.18%)
Artifact size: 338.74 MiB -> 338.81 MiB (0.02%)

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #140256) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #140596) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #139916) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[saethlin]

@rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged
See PR description

r? libs

[rustbot]

The Miri subtree was changed

cc @rust-lang/miri

Some changes occurred to the intrinsics. Make sure the CTFE / Miri interpreter
gets adapted for the changes, if necessary.

cc @rust-lang/miri, @RalfJung, @oli-obk, @lcnr

[saethlin]

To re-run on the new benchmarks:
@bors try @rust-timer queue

[rust-timer]

Awaiting bors try build completion.

@rustbot label: +S-waiting-on-perf

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit e36dc78 with merge 695a306...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 695a306 (695a3061da4318c118b7c637d9c31b33f73b7043)

[rust-timer]

Queued 695a306 with parent c43786c, future comparison URL.
There is currently 1 preceding artifact in the queue.
It will probably take at least ~1.9 hours until the benchmark run finishes.